Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KI‑408 of 1985, decided or. 28th March, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 2 (xxviii)‑‑'Workman'‑‑Respondent's main duty to do canvassing and get persons insured with appellant company and only a little was supervisory duty was ancillary to duty of doing propaganda work and canvassing‑‑Respondent, held, covered by definition given in section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

‑‑‑S. 9(i)‑‑'Workman'‑‑Duty of respondent to go door to door and ask people to get themselves insured with appellate company‑‑Work of respondent neither manual nor clerical‑‑Respondent, held, was not workman with meaning of S. 9(1) of West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1968.

‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Respondent's termination ordered in writing and reasons given therefore‑‑Target of income fixed at Rs. five lac by asking people to get themselves insured with appellant company not achieved by respondent‑‑Order of termination, set aside by lower Court, restored.

P L D 1980 S C 80 ref.

(d) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1668)‑‑

‑‑‑S. Os. 15(4) & 15(1)(2)‑‑Termination of services‑‑Allegations of inefficiency and unsatisfactory work‑‑Not misconduct‑‑Punishment of termination not provided in S.O.15(1)(i), West Pakistan Ordinance V1 of 1968.

Sardar Sami Hayat for Appellant.

Abdul Hakeem for Respondent.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 26‑6‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was Branch Manager when he was terminated from service on 23‑6‑1978. The learned lower Court has held that the grievance notice and the grievance petition are within time, that the respondent was a workman and that as he was not charge‑sheeted, nor enquiry held against him, the order of his termination was not legal.

3. It has been argued that the previous grievance notice was not legal as it was served by a lawyer and the second grievance notice was time‑barred. Before the Supreme Court held in P L D 1980 S C 80 that the grievance notice given by a lawyer was not a valid notice, the Courts were generally accepting such grievance notices as legal. The respondent not being party to the above cited ruling had no knowledge of it and as soon as it was cited, he withdrew the appeal and served another grievance notice. A codified law is presumed to be known by every one because it is duly notified in the official Gazette but judgments of the Courts are not so published in the official Gazette of the Government, so no presumption arises that they are known by everybody. Since before the controversy was resolved by P L D 1980 S C 80, grievance notices given by the lawyers were considered as valid, the respondent was justified in considering that the notice sent by his lawyer was valid. The learned lower Court thus was justified in considering the second grievance notice and the second grievance petition as within time.

4. So far as the point of workman is concerned, the respondent is covered by the definition given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as it cannot be said that he was employed mainly in supervisory capacity. His main duty was to make canvassing and get the persons insured with the appellant company. The little supervisory duty was ancillary to the duty of making propaganda and canvassing. The very reason for which he was terminated was that he had failed to touch the target of five lakh. But this is not enough. He should have shown that he was covered by the definition of workman given in section 9(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Going) door to door and asking people to get themselves insured with the appellant company was neither a manual nor clerical work. Manual work is that which is done by hands. For clerical work a typist had been given to him. So he is not covered by the definition given in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

5. So far as termination order is concerned, it is not legal. No doubt, the order of termination is in writing and reasons are given Reference is made in Exh. P.1 to a letter, dated 23‑7‑1978 Exh. P. 3. According to Exh. P. 3, target of income was of five lacs but the respondent had shown the income of Rs.90,354. No doubt, the respondent did not reply to Exh. P. 3, yet the appellant was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent for inefficiency and unsatisfactory work. Needless to say that the allegation of unsatisfactory work or inefficiency is not a misconduct. So the provisions of Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(d) were applicable. Punishment of termination is not provided in Standing Order 15(1)(i).

6. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of termination is restored.

M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.